Category Archives: Posted

Land for What? – a participatory weekend of learning, thinking and planning practical action around land rights, ownership and usage

An opportunity to take part in a participatory weekend of learning, thinking and planning practical action around land rights, ownership and usage, and how this connects to housing, food, health, nature and community:

Land for What?

A weekend of conversations about land hosted by Community Food Growers Network, Just Space, Landworkers’ Alliance, London Quaker Housing, New Economics Foundation, Radical Housing Network, Shared Assets, London Community Neighbourhood Co-operative, Three Acres And A Cow and Ubele

Resource For London, Holloway, London
November 12th – 13th 2016
eventbrite – https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/land-for-what-tickets-28307396184
website – http://landforwhat.org.uk/

Common Agricultural Policy: Rich List receive millions in EU subsidies (Greenpeace Report)

The Queen, aristocrats and Saudi prince among recipients of EU farm subsidies
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/29/the-queen-aristocrats-and-saudi-prince-among-recipients-of-eu-farm-subsidies?CMP=share_btn_link

At least one in five of the top 100 UK recipients of CAP subsidies were for farms owned or run by aristocratic families, say Greenpeace. The top 100 received £87.9m in agricultural subsidies last year.

Press Association Thursday 29 September 2016 11.35 BST

Wealthy aristocrats and a Saudi landowning prince are continuing to reap hundreds of thousands of pounds from the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
At least one in five of the top 100 recipients of CAP subsidies in the UK last year were farm businesses owned or controlled by members of aristocratic families, an investigation by environmental campaign group Greenpeace found.

They include the Queen, the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Northumberland, Sir Richard Sutton, the Earl of Moray, Baron Phillimore and family, and the Earl of Plymouth.

Household goods billionaire Sir James Dyson, who campaigned for Brexit, is also in the top 100.

Greenpeace analysed the top recipients of CAP subsidies in the UK for the first time. Some 16 of the top 100 are owned or controlled by individuals or families who feature on the 2016 Sunday Times rich list, receiving a total of £10.6m last year in single payment scheme subsidies alone, and £13.4m in total farm subsidies, Greenpeace said. Aberdeenshire farmer Frank Smart topped the list, receiving nearly £3m in grants for his Banchory business, Frank A Smart & Son Ltd.
The farmer has been subject to complaints that he has been ‘slipper farming’ – a technique in which farmers buy up land principally for the grants attached to it. While not illegal, the practice has been heavily criticised.

Also on the list were organisations such as the National Trust, which Greenpeace said had used their subsidies for important conservation work like managing habitats.

The government has promised to maintain CAP subsidies post-Brexit until 2020 while a domestic system is put in place.

Prince Khalid Abdullah al Saud, who owns champion racehorse Frankel, has reportedly described his farming interest as a hobby. Juddmonte Farms, which he owns through an offshore holding company in Guernsey, received £406,826 in farm subsidies last year, of which £378,856 came from the single payment scheme.
The two large estates owned by Sir James under Beeswax Farming (Rainbow) Ltd received almost £1.5m. The billionaire rubbished claims that British international trade would suffer outside the EU as he backed the campaign to leave Europe. Hannah Martin, of Greenpeace UK’s Brexit response team, said: “It is untenable for the government to justify keeping a farming policy which allows a billionaire to breed racehorses on land subsidised by taxpayers. It’s clear that there cannot be a business-as-usual approach to farm subsidies after we leave the EU. Some of the recipients of these subsidies are doing great work which benefits our environment – but others are not – and it makes no sense that the CAP’s largest subsidy payments don’t distinguish between the two.” Christopher Price, from the Country Land Association, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “He is not getting it because he’s a racehorse owner, he’s getting it because he’s a farmer and all developed countries support farming in one way or another.” But he agreed that Britain’s departure from the EU could create an opportunity to reform the system, for which there was certainly a need.

Sandringham Farms, the estate owned by the Queen, received £557,707, while Grosvenor Farms Limited, which farms the Duke of Westminster’s estate, raked in £437,434. The billionaire landowner died in August and left his fortune to his 25-year-old son. Percy Farms, described by Greenpeace as the “in-hand farming operation” of the Duke of Northumberland, was given £475,031. The National Trust, Natural England and the RSPB were all in the top 20.

The top 100 received £87.9m in agricultural subsidies last year, of which £61.2m came from the single payment scheme, where the size of the land owned largely determines the grant amount. Greenpeace said this was more than what was paid to the bottom 55,119 recipients in the single payment scheme combined.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said: “The secretary of state has underlined the need for continuity for farmers and together with her ministerial team is looking forward to working with industry, rural communities and the wider public to shape our plans for food, farming and the environment outside the EU.”

Conservative ministers Lord Gardiner and Eurosceptic George Eustice, who work in Defra, also receive subsidies. The department said the pair had declared any potential conflicts of interest, complied with the ministerial code and were cleared to discuss the future of the grants post-Brexit.
[end]
********************************************************************

Greenpeace Report: Common Agricultural Policy: Rich List receive millions in EU subsidies
September 29, 2016
by Crispin Dowler and Lawrence Carter, Greenpeace
View data at url source: https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/09/29/common-agricultural-policy-millions-eu-subsidies-go-richest-landowners/

People featured in the Sunday Times Rich List raked in more than £10m in land subsidy last year – according to a major Energydesk investigation into the top 100 recipients of direct EU farming subsidies. The investigation comes after Chancellor Phil Hammond promised that current levels of farm subsidy would continue until at least 2020, even after the UK leaves the EU.

The EU’s “direct” subsidy system – known until last year as the “single payment scheme” – has attracted criticism because it largely rewards landowners for simply owning land, rather than paying farmers to invest in environmental or other “public good” measures. A prominent Tory MP, numerous donors to the Conservative party and a Saudi Prince were also amongst the hundred biggest recipients of the subsidy, the investigation found. Commenting on the findings, the RSPB, which received £1,961,450 in single payments last year, told Energydesk that: “As a major landowner and farmer, we use the CAP funding we receive to deliver specific public benefits, such as managing vital habitats and providing a home for nature. The majority of the CAP though is still dominated by untargeted subsidies that provide little in return. As we move toward the EU exit door, we need to take the opportunity to create a policy that encourages other farmers and land managers across the country to do much more for the environment, and provides greater support for those who are already farming in ways that benefit nature.”

Wealthy owners
At least 16 of the 100 largest pay-outs under the single payment scheme last year went to entities owned or run by people featured in the Sunday Times Rich List, Energydesk found.

The group – which includes billionaires like Sir James Dyson and the Duke of Westminster, alongside others, like Lord Iveagh of the Guinness family – received £13.4m in total farm subsidies last year, of which £10.6m came from the single payment scheme alone.

Other recipients in the Top 100 include wealthy foreign owners not featured in the UK Rich List – including the internationally famous racehorse breeding operation Juddmonte Farms, owned by Prince Khalid Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

The Top 100 received a total of £87.9m in agricultural subsidies last year, of which £61.2m came from the single payment scheme – this is more than was paid to the bottom 55,119 recipients in the single payment scheme combined. The payments take up the vast majority of the farming subsidy pot.

The investigation also found that:
– At least one in five of the Top 100 single payments went to businesses owned or controlled by members of aristocratic families, including the Queen and the Duke of Northumberland.
– Four businesses in the Top 100 are owned through offshore companies based in the “secrecy jurisdictions” of Jersey and Guernsey, with two of those businesses using structures that hide ownership.
– Conservative MP Richard Drax received hundreds of thousands of pounds for his country estate in Dorset, while numerous recipients in the Top 100 have made donations to the Conservative Party.

Political pressure
The news comes as the government is under mounting pressure to set out how farming subsidies will work in the UK once the country exits the European Union.
A total of £3.2bn was paid in common agricultural policy (CAP) subsidies in the UK last year, according to latest published data from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and the CAP accounts for more than half of UK receipts from the EU budget.

Energydesk’s analysis of the latest DEFRA data is likely to prompt fresh calls for a fundamental shift away from so-called “Pillar 1” subsidies like the single payment scheme (see below: What are direct farming subsidies?).

New environment minister benefits from thousands in EU farm subsidies
Brexit campaigners could see millions in taxpayer handouts guaranteed

Campaigners have long argued this system disproportionately benefits large landowners, and has not delivered enough public benefit for the amount of public money spent. The single payment scheme made up nearly three quarters of all CAP subsidies paid last year – £2.3bn – with the overwhelming majority of that money going to the largest landowners. More than two thirds of the £2.3bn single payment budget – £1.6bn – went to the top 20 per cent of claimants. The bottom 40 per cent of claimants received only £95m combined – just 4 per cent of the total pot. The majority of those who claimed the single area payment last year received less than £6,000, while payments to the Top 100 ranged from £336,971 to £2.9m.

Offshore ownership
For some recipients in the Top 100, farming makes up a tiny proportion of overall income.

The Saudi owned Juddmonte Farms, which is owned through an offshore holding company in Guernsey, reported a turnover of £53.4m last year, but only £1.5m – 2.8 per cent – came from farming. The rest of the money came from its thoroughbred stud farm and horse racing. Although the UK company reported profits of £8.7m in 2015 it paid no corporation tax, due to trading losses in past years. Juddmonte’s training manager has previously told the Financial Times that it is “not run as a commercial operation” and that in most years the prince puts money into the business rather than taking it out. Juddmonte was given £406,826 in farm subsidies last year, of which £378,856 came from the single payment scheme.

Three other firms in the Top 100 are owned offshore, including Saker Estates and Palgrave Farming Company Ltd, which both use complex ownership structures in Jersey that hide the identity of the owner. Saker Estates received over half a million pounds from the single payment scheme last year. Its accounts state that “The company acts as agent for undisclosed principals”. A spokesperson for Saker Estates declined to comment when asked by Energydesk to disclose the identity of the owners.

The landed gentry
More than one in five of the Top 100 are owned or run by aristocratic individuals or families, many of whom have inherited titles and thousands of acres of land.
The 4th Earl of Iveagh, a descendent of the Guinness family, benefitted from £887,538 in single area payments and £1,398,962 overall, for Elveden Farms. The business is based on a 22,500 acre country estate, of which around 10,000 acres is farmland. The company is owned through an offshore trust based in Jersey, although there is no suggestion that this is to avoid tax.

Other recipients include the Duke of Northumberland, the Earl of Moray, Lord Rothschild, the family of Baronet Sir Richard Sutton, and the Queen. A Buckingham Palace spokesperson told Energydesk: “The subsidies are open to all farmers, and like others with agricultural interests, subsidies are received on The Queen’s private estate.”

A spokesperson for the Earl of Moray said: “All our payments are received for land in hand and actively farmed by our business. As for the vast majority of farmers in the UK CAP support is an important part of our income and helps deliver the intended public policy objectives of maintaining food production, social fabric and environmental standards in rural areas.”

In addition to inherited land, several of the Top 100 recipients are estates that have been bought up by foreign billionaires. This includes Ramsbury Estates, which manages over 19,000 acres in the Home Counties and is owned by Carl Stefan Erling Persson, heir to the H&M fashion empire and reportedly the richest man in Sweden.
Conservative MP Richard Drax, who lives on the Charborough Estate in Dorset, also appears in the Top 100. Drax benefitted from £384,351 in single payments last year through ACF (Drax Farm). When contacted by Energydesk Mr Drax declined to comment.

A spokesperson for Grosvenor Farms, the Duke of Westminster’s farming operation, said: “Grosvenor Farms is a commercial agricultural business producing milk and combinable crops which employs more than 50 people and farms over 2,300 hectares of land. GFL is bound by the rules and regulations defined by the Common Agricultural Policy and in the same way as any other UK farming business.”

The National Trust, which is the second largest recipient of direct subsidies, told Energydesk: “We want to see the system of support for farming fundamentally reformed so that it delivers more public benefit. We accept that our income may go down as a result of subsidy reform. But what’s important for us is what the overall system achieves for the natural environment, not how much the National Trust gets”.

What are direct farming subsidies?
Direct farming subsidies – also known as “Pillar 1” of the Common Agricultural Policy – are intended as basic income support for farmers. Until the European Commission’s 2015 financial year (which ended on 15 October 2015) these were paid under a system called the “single payment scheme”. The figures for that financial year are the latest available, and are the figures used in Greenpeace’s analysis. The single payment scheme was based on the amount of agricultural land the claimant had at their disposal. Farmers were allocated payment “entitlements”, and to claim against them they needed to declare an equivalent number of hectares of land.

After this year, the single payment scheme was replaced by the “basic payment scheme” (BPS), which was intended to close some of the loopholes in the previous system and give greater weight to the provision of environmental public goods. However, the new system remains largely based on land ownership. Under the basic payment scheme around 30 per cent of a farmer’s payment depends on them meeting three “greening” rules. These require farmers to grow two or three different crops, to devote at least 5 per cent of their arable land to “ecological focus areas” like hedges and fallow land, and to take some responsibility for maintaining the proportion of permanent grassland in the country. The new scheme also bars some businesses from claiming the subsidy if they also operate airports, railway services, waterworks, real estate services, or permanent sports grounds. However, these businesses are still able to claim BPS if, for example, they have more than 36 hectares of eligible land.

Farm subsidies: The top ten
September 29, 2016
by Crispin Dowler and Lawrence Carter

Some of the richest people in the country are receiving millions of pounds in EU backed agricultural subsidies – according to a major Energydesk investigation.
The investigation comes after Chancellor Phil Hammond promised that current levels of farm subsidy would continue until at least 2020, even after the UK leaves the EU. The EU’s “direct” subsidy system – known until last year as the “single payment scheme” – has attracted criticism because it largely rewards landowners simply for owning land. Leading charities – who benefit from the current set-up – have called for the scheme to be reformed to promote wider social and environmental objectives.

Other recipients include members of the Sunday Times rich list, aristocrats, royalty and wealthy foreign investors.

Buying entitlements
The largest single area payment in 2015 – of £2.9m – went to Frank A Smart & Son Ltd. According to the ruling of a 2014 tax tribunal, Frank Smart is a Scottish farmer who sought to fund the expansion of his business by buying up “entitlements” to CAP subsidy. Energydesk was unable to reach Mr Smart for comment. In total, there were eight recipients who received more than £1m last year for the single area payment alone. They include Sir James Dyson’s farming operation – Beeswax Farming (Rainbow) Ltd; Farmcare Trading, owned by medical research charitable foundation the Wellcome Trust, and Strutt & Parker Farms.

Reform calls
Two charities are amongst the top ten– the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The two have actively campaigned for reform of the current subsidy system.

A spokesperson for the National Trust said: “We want to see the system of support for farming fundamentally reformed so that it delivers more public benefit. We accept that our income may go down as a result of subsidy reform. But what’s important for us is what the overall system achieves for the natural environment, not how much the National Trust gets.

“As we set out in our Annual Report, in the last calendar year we received £8.6m from CAP. Around two thirds of this is for agri-environment schemes delivering specific benefits for the natural environment at our places. The rest comes from the general subsidy for farmers that we receive. We reinvest this subsidy income in our farms and estates to help us deliver our charitable purpose to look after special places for ever, for everyone.”

[end]

Evictions reach new high as 19,000 private renters forced onto streets in just one year

Homelessness crisis reaches new high as 19,000 private renters forced onto streets in just one year

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/homelessness-crisis-new-high-19000-private-renters-forced-onto-streetsyear-a7335756.html
‘Figures are a heartbreaking reminder of the devastating impact our drastic shortage of affordable homes is having,’ says chief executive of Shelter
Harriet Agerholm @HarrietAgerholm 16 hours  ago

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Diggers350/conversations/messages/6038
Just under 43,000 families made homeless across all sectors in the last year Getty
The number of private renters becoming homeless is at its highest level in England since records began.
Almost 19,000 households became homeless after being evicted by a private landlord in the last year, a 200 per cent increase compared to five years ago and the highest number on record.
Across all the sectors, just under 43,000 families were accepted as homeless by their local council in the last year � a rise of 35 per cent from five years ago.
According to official statistics released by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the end of an assured shorthold tenancy – the most common form of rental agreement – has become an increasingly common reason for becoming homeless.
The spiralling costs of housing coupled with cuts to welfare spending have been blamed for the steep rise.
English councils dealt with 200,930 requests for help from people on the verge of homelessness in the last year.
Jon Sparkes, head of homelessness charity, Crisis, said: �We need a change in the law to prevent more people from losing their home and to make sure all homeless people can get the help they need, while councils need the funding to make this work.
�Prevention has already been shown to work in Wales, where it has dramatically reduced the need for people to be re-housed.�
A bill put forward by Bill Blackman MP to address the problem will have it’s second reading in late October  It proposes a new duty for all local authorities to take action on behalf of anyone threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days, regardless of what their priority status is.
Responding to the figures, chief executive of homelessness organisation Shelter Campbell Robb said: �These figures are a heartbreaking reminder of the devastating impact our drastic shortage of affordable homes is having.
�Every day we hear from families struggling to keep their heads above water when faced with the double blow of welfare cuts and expensive, unstable private renting, with far too many ultimately losing the battle to stay in their home.
�On top of this, stripped back budgets and a drought of affordable homes are making it increasingly difficult for overburdened councils to find homeless families anywhere suitable to live.”

Neighbours form human chain around Bristol mum’s house to stop eviction

Simon Robb for Metro.co.uk Thursday 22 Sep 2016 2:21 pm
http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/22/neighbours-form-human-chain-around-a-mums-house-to-stop-eviction-6145004/
A woman facing ‘revenge eviction’ has been given a lifeline after her neighbours gathered to form a human chain around her home.
Nimo Abdullahi, 39, claimed her landlord tried to kick her and her five children out of their home after she complained about the rising damp.

This is the moment kindhearted neighbours in Easton, Bristol, formed a human chain around a mum's house - to stop her being kicked out in a 'revenge eviction'. See SWNS story SWSAVE; Nimo Abdullahi, 39, was told she and her family would be thrown out of their home of 12 years after she complained to her landlord about damp. But in a bid to protect the mum-of-five from a 'revenge eviction', residents and campaigners turned out to stop it happening. Around 30 people stood side by side, arms linked, to build a wall of bodies in front of the privately-rented property in Easton, Bristol. All morning, more neighbours joined the blockade - with a newlywed couple living opposite the family cutting up their wedding cake to keep the protesters sustained. When bailiffs turned up at 11am on Tuesday, they weren't able to get inside.
This is the moment kindhearted neighbours in Easton, Bristol, formed a human chain around a mum’s house – to stop her being kicked out in a ‘revenge eviction’. See SWNS story SWSAVE; Nimo Abdullahi, 39, was told she and her family would be thrown out of their home of 12 years after she complained to her landlord about damp. But in a bid to protect the mum-of-five from a ‘revenge eviction’, residents and campaigners turned out to stop it happening. Around 30 people stood side by side, arms linked, to build a wall of bodies in front of the privately-rented property in Easton, Bristol. All morning, more neighbours joined the blockade – with a newlywed couple living opposite the family cutting up their wedding cake to keep the protesters sustained. When bailiffs turned up at 11am on Tuesday, they weren’t able to get inside.

But neighbours and campaigners turned out in force to stop bailiffs from forcing the family out of their home in Easton, Bristol.
A newlywed couple living opposite even cut up their wedding cake for all the protesters.
When the bailiffs arrived on Tuesday morning, they were unable to get past the 30 protesters who stood strong.
Nimo claimed the landlord tried to evict them numerous times before and even threatened to get the police to do the job.
She said: ‘It has a big problem with damp. This is bad for us, because my children have asthma and it is not a good place.
‘Until recently, the carpets everywhere were very old and dirty and we would ask the landlord to improve things, but he was difficult.
‘Many times I asked him, and a lot of times he would threaten us.’
Neighbour Jenny Ross said: ‘We don’t want people in our community treated like this. It’s a revenge eviction and people deserve decent rented accommodations.’
Another neighbour, Kirsten Parton, added: ‘I’m here because of the way she’s been treated by her landlord, it is simply not on.
‘She and her family are part of the community and have been here for quite some time.’
Nimo is being helped by Acorn, a local grass roots movement which fights for renters’ rights.
Efforts have been made to get in touch with the landlord.

BURIED: UN slams Tories over UK human rights abuses

JUNE 28TH, 2016 Steve Topple STEVE TOPPLE UK

BURIED: UN slams Tories over UK human rights abuses

While the country is entrenched in the mire of the EU referendum fallout, the Tories have just been slammed by the United Nations (UN) – for human rights abuses.

But not abroad. Here, in the UK.

As The Canary previously reported, on the 15 and 16 June the UN Human Rights committee on economic, social and cultural affairs publicly reported its questioning of the Tories, after more than two years of evidence-gathering concerning the impact of their policies on society.

report was submitted by the UK government, from which the final conclusions and recommendations, which were released on Monday night, have been drawn. And the UN pulls no punches in its assessment.

Failed policies

The criticisms are overarching, and in some cases staggering – covering nearly every area of government policy. It appears the UN have three levels of disdain: “regret”, “concerned” and “seriously or deeply concerned” – and the latter, worryingly, comes up relating to two specific areas.

The committee spoke at length about asylum seekers; specifically, that our government is failing them “due to restrictions in accessing employment and the insufficient level of support provided”. It goes further and says that they are, basically, being denied the health care that they are entitled to under international law. The UN also slams the government over its treatment of migrant workers, in terms of exploitation, low pay and health care access – specifically citing the fact the Tories ignored its last set of recommendations.

The government comes under criticism for its sales of weapons to foreign countries and lack of legislation surrounding this. A pertinent issue at present, with the Tories coming under increasing pressure to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia, who are currently accused of committing war crimes in Yemen.

The UN is also critical of the practices surrounding government-backed private companies’ conduct in foreign countries. This specifically relates to an investigation by Global Justice Now, surrounding the Department for International Development ploughing money into private education companies in Uganda and Kenya – at the cost of their free education systems. It seems the Tories not only want a profit from the UK’s schools, they want it from other countries’ schools as well.

There were numerous other areas in which the Tories came under fire: their failure to tackle tax avoidance; the 2016 Trade Union Act and blacklisting of workers; the reductions in the corporate tax rate; the decimation of the legal aid system; the failure to introduce the 2010 Equality Act in Northern Ireland and the continued illegality of abortion; the gender pay gap; the under-funding of mental health services; worsening of social care for the elderly; the lowly minimum wage; violence against women, and the lack of female representation in high-profile public roles.

However, the most damning indictments and truly staggering ones were surrounding austerity, unemployment, living standards and welfare reforms. And the majority of the barrage of criticisms were aimed at the impact these had on the vulnerable and the disabled.

Forgetting the most vulnerable

In short, criticisms were fired at the Tories over:

  • the number of self-employed, part-time and zero hours contracts jobs, and the effect on marginalised people.
  • the housing crisis in the UK, including the lack of social housing, sky-high rental prices and rogue landlords.
  • the “exceptionally high” levels of homelessness and the Conservatives’ inadequate response to this.
  • the government’s record on education and failure to address inequality affecting pupils attainment levels.
  • a failure to address food poverty and the heavy reliance by millions on food banks.
  • the rising levels of poverty among marginalised groups, and the government’s failure to tackle child poverty.

But perhaps the two most astonishing sections were those dedicated to what the UN described itself as having “seriously” and “deeply” concerned views on – the effects of austerity, and welfare reforms on the disabled and most vulnerable in society.

The UN said of the Conservatives’ austerity measures:

the Committee is seriously concerned about the disproportionate adverse impact that austerity measures, introduced since 2010, are having on […] disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups. The Committee is concerned that the State party has not undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impact of such measures […] in a way that is recognized by civil society and national independent monitoring mechanisms.

Translated? The UN is saying that the government has forced through austerity measures without bothering to think or care how they would affect the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable – and that in doing so, they have flouted agreed international standards. The government had already been warned once by the UN in 2012 regarding this – but the Tories chose to ignore it. They were told that (regarding austerity):

such measures must be temporary, necessary, proportionate, and not discriminatory and must not disproportionately affect the rights of disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups and respect the core content of rights.

The UN said the government now must review all austerity measures since 2010 and the impact they have had on the marginalised groups they refer to.

However, the severest criticisms were of the 2012 Welfare Reform Act and the Welfare Reform and Work Act of 2016 – and the language and recommendations from the UN were unprecedented.

Unparalleled human rights criticisms

In no uncertain terms, the UN said that it was:

deeply concerned about the various changes in the entitlements to, and cuts in, social benefits, introduced [in the two acts] such as the reduction of the household benefit cap, the […] spare-room subsidy (bedroom tax), the four year freeze on certain benefits and the reduction in child tax credits. The Committee is particularly concerned about the adverse impact on […] disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups, including women, children, persons with disabilities, low-income families and families with two or more children. The Committee also is concerned about the extent to which the State party has made use of sanctions in relation to social security benefits and the absence of due process and access to justice for those affected by the use of sanctions.

This is exceptionally strong language from the UN. Having compared the report on the UK to that of Angola, nowhere in Angola’s does the phrase “deeply/seriously concerned” appear.

Nor does it in the reports for Burkina Faso, France, Sweden or Macedonia. The only report that ours is comparable to is that of Honduras – a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world, and one which is subject to tourist travel warnings from both the US and the UK.

The recommendations from the UN are even more far-reaching.

It says the government should:

restore the link between the rates of state benefits and the costs of living and guarantee that all social benefits provide a level of benefits sufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living, including access to health care, adequate housing and food; Review the use of sanctions in relation to social security benefits and ensure that they are used proportionately and are subject to prompt and independent dispute resolution mechanisms.

But the most staggering part is that it says, without hesitation, that the government needs toreverse all benefit cuts that were introduced in both the 2012 and 2016 acts. It also stipulates that it expects the government to provide “disaggregated data” on the impact of the welfare reforms, specifically in marginalised groups.

Sadly, there is an inherent flaw with everything that the UN has stipulated – none of it is legally binding.

The UN state in their report that they are “disappointed” that this, and previous, governments have not taken the “covenant” (agreement & rules) of the committee and written them into domestic law. It urges the government “to fully incorporate the covenant rights into its domestic legal order and ensure that victims of violations of economic, social and cultural rights have full access to effective legal remedies”. That is, if a person feels that the government has breached its human rights under the UN’s covenant – it can take them to court.

The likelihood of this government, or any future one for that matter, adopting the UN’s rule is slim to say the least. But it is sorely needed.

Broken Britain? Again?

Speaking to The Canary, Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) said:

The response and recommendations of the report provide a damning declaration of the catalogue of the removal of rights that the Tories have imposed in their heartless regime. The report is to be welcomed for its forthright language and its recommendations. It contains everything that DPAC and campaigners have pointed out time and time again. For example, the call for a cumulative assessment of the cuts, the withdrawal of legal aid cuts, the targeting of funds to alleviate increasing poverty, reversal of welfare reform cuts, linking of cost of living to social security payments and a review of sanction procedures. If this report were a political party, it would win the next election. Labour – keep your elected leader and take note.

The report is one of the most damning assessments of a Western government in modern times. But to those who have been at the sharp end of recent policy changes, it will come as no surprise.

The government has to report back to the UN on certain aspects immediately, otherwise, the next review will take place in 2021.

Sadly, with a Tory government looking set to lurch even further to the right, and a Labour party in a state of implosion, things may well become even more precarious.

It seems, as always, that it will be down to us, the public, to try and force meaningful change.

And meaningful change must come – because already, for many, it is too late.

Get involved.

Support Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC)

Sign the petition to stop cuts to disabled people’s benefits

Revealed: Homeless charities ‘complicit’ in rough sleeper deportations

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/homeless-charities-complicit-in-rough-sleeper-deportations

“Homeless individuals are sitting ducks for immigration enforcement”
By Natalie BloomerThursday, 15 September 2016

Two well-known homeless charities are accused of being ‘complicit’ with the deportation of foreign rough sleepers from the UK, Politics.co.uk can reveal.

Leading homelessness charities St Mungo’s and Thames Reach worked on a scheme to tackle ‘entrenched’ rough sleeping in London, which also involved immigration enforcement teams removing people from the country against their will.

Documents released by the Greater London Authority suggest the charities supported the ‘administrative removal’ of some foreign rough sleepers.

Administrative removals are deportations carried out against people who may have breached the conditions of their stay in the UK. Under government guidance announced this year, just being seen sleeping rough is considered a breach.

Campaigners today hit out at the charities for being ‘complicit’ with deportations.

“Homeless individuals are sitting ducks for immigration enforcement,” Rita Chadha, the chief executive of Ramfel, a refugee and migrant group, said.

“The fact that some homelessness charities can be complicit in such work is to our collective shame.

“People need to start questioning where their donations to some homeless charities are going. Are they really helping individuals or are they subsidising state-sanctioned enforcement?”

Former mayor of London Boris Johnson asked the homeless charities to work on a ‘payment by results’ basis, in order to help fulfil his promise to eradicate rough sleeping from London’s streets.

GLA documents reveal that in 2012, Thames Reach and St Mungo’s were commissioned to provide a number of services to around 800 so-called “entrenched” rough sleepers. But the programme, which was called a Social Impact Bond (SIB), also aimed to “reconnect” EU nationals with their home countries.

“Reconnections” are usually described as voluntary help for people who want to return home. But an update on the SIB in 2015, suggests they can also refer to forced removals from the country.

In the update, the GLA told the Investment & Performance Board (IPB) that “the number of reconnections abroad had fallen short of the providers’ targets” but that “with ten SIB clients having recently been referred to the Home Office for administrative removal, the number of reconnections in this year may well exceed the providers’ in-year target”.

The SIB is just one of several GLA projects to tackle rough sleeping in the capital. In the authority’s commissioning framework they make it clear that any charity wanting to provide their rough sleeping services would be expected to cooperate with immigration officials to remove EU nationals.

The framework comments on their “notable success” in working with Immigration Compliance Enforcement (ICE) teams, who liaise with “local authorities, service providers and the police” to deal with EU nationals who are neither employed or self-sufficient.

The document goes on to say: “This has involved testing a process of administrative removal for those individuals overstaying or not exercising their treaty rights. The GLA has supported this response and will continue to support similar initiatives in the future.”

Charities co-operated with scheme to remove ‘entrenched’ rough sleepers

Thames Reach’s contract to carry out the GLA’s ‘reconnection’ work ended earlier this year. However, in a response to the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee homeless inquiry they confirmed they support the practice of forced removals. They said:

“For different reasons there is a reluctance to take up this voluntary reconnection and for some, inevitably, an administrative removal carried out by the Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) service becomes necessary.”

They also suggested that a solution to reduce the flow of migrants to the UK who end up sleeping rough would be to increase “enforcement by ICE teams” where EU treaty obligations are not met.

Ramfel has raised concerns about the GLA’s reliance on charities to assess immigration cases and questioned whether their staff have the necessary skills and experience to provide accurate advice.

“We have seen a number of individuals who have felt pressured to leave the UK or have been told they have no alternative but to return home, when actually there are a variety of options available to them to remain here,” Chadha said.

St Mungo’s confirmed that they had worked with other agencies to ‘reconnect’ foreign rough sleepers. The director of the Street Outreach Service at St Mungo’s, Petra Salva said:

“St Mungo’s does not remove rough sleepers who are not exercising their treaty rights. Our work is with vulnerable people sleeping rough. We support people to move away from the streets, have a place to call home and to rebuild their lives. We consider the person and the best route off the street for them. That can involve working with other agencies, including reconnection within other London boroughs, to other parts of the UK or overseas.”

When contacted by Politics.co.uk, Thames Reach said that they were only currently engaged with assisting voluntary reconnections. A spokesperson said:

“We know that rough sleeping is dangerous and can kill.  At least 83 verified rough sleepers died last year in London. Where it is needed, we make sure that vulnerable people get the support they need to make a successful return home, and get the help they need when they get there.”

Private landlords double housing benefit haul to £9.3bn

  • 20 August 2016
Flat balconyNearly half of all housing benefit claimants are now in work

Private landlords in the UK received twice as much in housing benefit last year – £9.3bn – as they did a decade ago, a report says.

The National Housing Federation (NHF) study said the increase was due to a big rise in the number of private tenants claiming housing benefit.

The NHF said this particular group of people had grown by 42% since 2008.

In 2006, some £4.6bn in housing benefit was paid to private landlords, a figure which had more than doubled by 2015.

NHF chief executive David Orr said: “It is madness to spend £9bn of taxpayers’ money lining the pockets of private landlords rather than investing in affordable homes.”

“The lack of affordable housing available means that a wider group of people need housing benefit,” he added.

Working poor

Had these housing benefit claimants been living in social housing instead of renting from private landlords, taxpayers would have saved huge sums of money over seven years, the NHF report estimated.

It said that taxpayers paid £1,000 more per year, per family renting in the private rented sector, than they did for those in social housing.

This amounted to an average of £2.2bn a year extra being handed over to private landlords, at a cumulative additional cost of £15.6bn over the past seven years, the NHF analysis says.

If this extra housing benefit bill for just one year had been spent on creating new affordable housing, the NHF added, then nearly 50,000 new homes could have been built.

The report also points out that a larger proportion of families claiming housing benefit in the private rented sector are now in work.

“Today, nearly half (47%) of all families claiming housing benefit in the private rented sector are in work – this is nearly double the proportion it was six years ago (26%),” the NHF said.

‘Tenants failed’

A government spokesman said it had been taking action to bring the housing benefit bill under control.

He said: “Since 2012 the amount going to private sector landlords has actually been falling – something which the National Housing Federation fails to recognise.”

“We are also committed to building the homes this country needs and investing £8bn to build 400,000 more affordable homes.”

Chris Norris, head of policy at the National Landlords Association, said the private rented sector was responding to the increasing demand for homes from a growing proportion of tenants who are being failed by the social housing sector and housing associations.

“The NHF is clearly still reeling from the news that its members have been ordered by government to reduce spending over the next four years, so it comes as no surprise that they are looking to shift the emphasis and point the finger elsewhere,” he said.

“However, the private rented sector plays a pivotal role in providing much-needed homes for tenants so there seems no real purpose in the NHF taking a cheap shot at landlords for what is a failure on behalf of successive governments to adequately allocate its housing budget and to incentivise the building of new homes.”

Queen Elizabeth has vast, secret, Bank of England shareholding

    Tony Gosling Jun 12, 2012 At last making some real headway with this vexing question of who owns the shares of the Bank of England. This ain’t nationalisation ma’am!
    2 Extracts from

1077025._UY475_SS475_

    WAR OF THE WINDSORS A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy

By Lynne Picnett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior With additional historical research by Robert Brydon Mainstream publishing – 2003 ISBN: 1 84018 766 2

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/06/496942.html

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=161285#161285

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Diggers350/conversations/messages/4291

    EXTRACT 1/2: THE BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES In early 1973 new legislation governing the ownership of shares was proposed by the Heath Government. This would force stockbroking companies to disclose the names of the individuals on whose behalf they bought shares (to prevent them gaining a controlling interest in a company by buying shares in several different names). The Queen was concerned that this would mean that details of her private investments would be made public, which would allow her personal wealth to be calculated – which the royal family had always strenuously avoided – and asked her Private Secretary, Sir Martin Charteris (who had succeeded Sir Michael Adeane in 1972), to express her anxiety to Edward Heath. The legislation was delayed, but eventually became law – under Labour in 1976 as the Companies Act. However, a special clause was included that exempted a new shareholding company, Bank of England Nominees. This was established with the purpose of handling investments solely on behalf of heads of state and their immediate families. This allowed the Queen’s investments and those of her family – along with those of other heads of state, such as the Sultan of Brunei, who were quick to take advantage of the exemption – to be effectively concealed. Extraordinarily, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer is permitted to know about the Queen’s personal investments. Andrew Morton writes: The result of this legislation has been to cocoon further the royal finances in a web of mystery. Journalists who delve into dusty share registers find the impenetrable phrase ‘Bank of England Nominees’ staring back at them when they try to find a hint of royal investment in a company. The justification for the clause was that public knowledge about where the Queen invested her money might influence the market. However, that this was just an excuse is revealed by a memo sent from the Palace to the Government saying that it is ‘to be congratulated on a neat and defensible solution’. In other words, the Palace were pleased that the Government had come up with a way of justifying the secrecy.
    EXTRACT 2/2 ……..Thanks to the legal privileges she enjoys – such being able to hide her investments behind the screen of the Bank of England Nominees – the Queen’s personal wealth is literally incalculable. There is no information available to enable it to be calculated with certainty, although a recent analysis by the Independent estimated Elizabeth II’s personal fortune to be around £175 million. Of course, the question can fairly be asked why her subjects need to know about her private means, which are quite separate from the government funds intended to pay for her expenses as Head of State. But the distinction is not always clear: for example, although the estates at Balmoral and Sandringham – acquired in Victoria’s reign – are said to be the Queen’s private property, there is evidence that Victoria and Albert acquired them at least partly with money diverted from the Civil List, in which case surely the state has a claim on them? And when these houses are occupied they are paid for by the taxpayer, on the grounds that wherever the Queen is she is always the Head of State. What of the Royal Collection – the works of art that according to one estimate are worth around £7 billion, and which contain three times as many paintings as the National Gallery? In theory the Queen holds all these ‘in trust’ for the nation; in practice she alone possesses them, while they remain largely unseen by the rest of us (at anyone time, less than a half of a per cent of the collection is on public display). There is also the very vexed question of the ‘grace and favour’ properties, paid for the state but occupied by……
    WAR OF THE WINDSORS CONTENTS Acknowledgements Prologue 1. ‘A Kingly Caste of Germans’ 2. ‘The People’s Prince’ 3. ‘Christ! What’s Going to Happen Next?’ 4. ‘A Kind of English National Socialist’ 5. ‘The Most Unconstitutional Act’ 6. ‘The End of Many Hopes’ 7. ‘The House of Mountbatten Now Reigns!’ 8. ‘That German Princeling’ 9. ‘In Spite of Everything, He was a Great Man’ 10. ‘After All I’ve Done for this F-ing Family’ 11. ‘There are Powers at Work in This Country About Which We Have No Knowledge’ Notes and References Bibliography Index

Empty homes: graphics show shocking extent of Britain’s unnecessary homelessness

Empty Homes in England

Empty Homes in England04 March 2016

Many cities across Britain are becoming more and more like ghost towns as absentee owners push up property prices but fail to contribute to the local economy.
Many cities across Britain are becoming more and more like ghost towns as absentee owners push up property prices but fail to contribute to the local economy.

There are multiple reasons as to why properties are left empty on a long term basis with the top four being:

  • Landlords are unable to afford repairs for it to be suitable for a new tenant
  • It’s an inherited property and the new owners are unsure what to do with it
  • Renovations are taking a long time or they have stalled
  • The owners are waiting for the market value to increase before a sale

Unsurprisingly, more than three quarters of British adults (78%) think that the Government should place a higher priority on tackling empty homes.

In addition, with cuts to housing benefit, welfare reform and a huge lack of affordable housing, homelessness is a crisis that has seen a 26% rise in the last four years. Statistics have shown that if empty homes were put back into use, there would be the equivalent of eleven homes per person registered as being accepted as homeless and in priority need.

Whilst public perception and the vast numbers of homelessness and empty homes instill a sense of urgency, official statistics show that numbers of empty homes have been consistently decreasing over the last 10 years. There’s still much to be done; however, it’s positive that the cities and community groups are making a stronger effort to reduce both numbers.

We are on hand to support new owners with selling their homes in a swift and effective manner to get properties back on the market and inhabited as soon as possible.

To show further support to the campaign to prevent homelessness and support those without homes, we have made a donation to “Homes from Empty Homes”.

For further information support regarding empty homes in England, you can visit:

For further information about homelessness in England, you can find out more at:

You can download our data visualisations as a PDF by clicking here

Passing Clouds eviction: Supporters of Dalston music venue protest outside court

08 August 2016 – 

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/passing_clouds_eviction_supporters_of_dalston_music_venue_protest_outside_court_1_4648379

Passing Clouds supporters outside court. (Picture: Polly Hancock).

Passing Clouds supporters outside court. (Picture: Polly Hancock).

Passing Clouds is the latest music venue to be targeted by developers who want a piece of Hackney’s thriving reputation. Protesters were outside court on Friday morning as the landlord applied for an eviction notice. The Gazette was there too.

Eleanor Wilson (right) heading into court for the hearing. (Picture: Polly Hancock).Eleanor Wilson (right) heading into court for the hearing. (Picture: Polly Hancock).

Anyone who’s walked around Hackney in the last few months will have seen signs in shop windows reading “Passing Clouds forever”.

Passing Clouds is an independent music venue in Dalston, one of the few left in the whole of London. More than 5,000 musicians from 100 countries have performed there in the last 10 years and it’s got huge support from the community, politicians and the music industry.

Jack Yglesias a musician, artist was showing his support. (Picture: Polly Hancock).Jack Yglesias a musician, artist was showing his support. (Picture: Polly Hancock).

On Friday morning, that support was out in force at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court, where the landlord, Landhold Developments, was making an application to evict Passing Clouds from the building.

Spirits were high as dozens of protesters lined Gee Street and director Eleanor Wilson was given a rousing reception on her arrival.

Passing Clouds staff Freddy Burls and Sophia Lysaczenko. (Picture: Polly Hancock).Passing Clouds staff Freddy Burls and Sophia Lysaczenko. (Picture: Polly Hancock).

There were people of all ages outside as musicians strummed away and others tried their best to create a genuine carnival atmosphere complete with face painting and fancy dress.

The only thing missing was records playing as people danced (and hula-hooped) in the street in front of bemused builders.

The group celebrate after their show of people power. Picture: www.borisaustin.comThe group celebrate after their show of people power. Picture: www.borisaustin.com

Some then went into court for the hearing, which was swiftly adjourned until Friday.

Sadly, this is just the latest development in a long legal battle between the two parties that started with the “secret sale” of the venue in November – after management had spent years trying to buy it from the previous landlord.

The scheduled events went ahead as planned after the venue was reclaimed. Picture: www.borisaustin.comThe scheduled events went ahead as planned after the venue was reclaimed. Picture: www.borisaustin.com

A lease extension was initially granted until August, but on the night of June 16 bailiffs were sent in to change the locks.

What they didn’t count on was 200 people, mostly musicians, arriving within hours of the discovery to force them back out in a defiant act of people power.

The building has been occupied 24/7 ever since by the Passing Clouds community, who are desperate to stop it going the way of so many other independent music venues. A three-month, 10th birthday celebration featuring concerts from Mercury-prize winning artist Speech Debelle, Lee Scratch Perry, and Maxi Jazz of Faithless has carried on as planned.

Gary McKenzie is the private hire boss at Passing Clouds. Speaking outside the court, he told the Gazette: “It [the venue] is so important for the community and for world music.

“Venues like ours are what attracts people to the area. No one would have wanted to come if the culture wasn’t here in the first place and now they want to destroy it for flats. It’s not just us either, there’s lots of us going under. Everywhere is gonna look like Canary Wharf.”

Supporter Paul Clarke has been going to Passing Clouds since it opened and has witnessed Dalston become a hive of creativity in the last 10 years.

He said: “The transformation of the area is largely down to a small number of businesses that acted as catalysts and Passing Clouds is the longest running, most successful of those. The regeneration is down to them.”

A petition to save the venue has gathered almost 13,000 signatures so far, while a crowdfunder has received £10,000 in donations.

MP Meg Hillier has also thrown her weight behind the campaign, saying the venue was part of what made Dalston a “magnet for creatives”.

She said: “It is vital developers and planners recognise it is venues like these that contribute so much to make areas desirable. If these are lost, some of the very reasons why Hackney is such a popular place to live and work are undermined.”